Nearly a year since the Uganda Boxing Federation (UBF) moved to assert control over professional boxing through the formation of its Licensing Committee, questions are growing louder within the boxing fraternity: should the committee now be held accountable for the state of the sport, or should this period be viewed as a necessary year of study, transition, and hard lessons?

Formed on February 13, 2025, the UBF Licensing Committee was created under the National Sports Act, 2023, which mandates the unification of amateur and professional boxing under one national governing body. The committee—led by Mulangira and Hussein, with Phillip Munaabi as Secretary and members Abdu Tebazalwa and Nicholas Buule—was tasked with overseeing professional boxing, a role previously managed by the Uganda Professional Boxing Commission (UPBC).

The intention was clear: streamline governance, align boxing with the law, and bring order under a single federation. The reality, however, has been far more complex.

Over the past year, Ugandan boxing has been marked by governance disputes, legal uncertainty, and operational slowdowns. Conflicting claims of authority between the UBF Licensing Committee and the UPBC have led to confusion over event sanctioning, licensing of boxers and officials, and the legitimacy of fights. Promoters have struggled to plan consistently, boxers have endured long spells of inactivity, and fans have been left uncertain about the credibility of events.

The numbers reflect the concern. Uganda hosted 24 boxing events in 2024, but only nine events have been organized so far in 2025. This sharp decline has fueled debate over whether the new governance framework has inadvertently stalled the sport rather than stabilized it.

Within boxing circles, opinions are divided.

Some stakeholders argue that accountability is now unavoidable. They believe that a year is sufficient time for the Licensing Committee to establish clear procedures, engage stakeholders, and minimize disruption. From this perspective, the continued silence or slow response to controversies, cancellations, and licensing disputes raises serious questions about leadership, communication, and effectiveness.

Others, however, urge caution. They contend that the committee inherited a deeply divided system under a new and untested legal framework. According to this view, the past year should be seen as a transition phase—one marked by legal learning curves, institutional adjustments, and resistance from entrenched interests. Supporters of this position argue that expecting smooth operations during such a fundamental restructuring may have been unrealistic.

What remains undisputed is the cost of prolonged uncertainty. Boxers lose momentum and income, managers struggle to plan careers, promoters face financial risks, and Uganda’s regional standing in boxing continues to weaken as neighboring countries maintain more stable calendars.

As the UBF Licensing Committee moves into its next phase, the key question may not be whether mistakes were made—but whether lessons have been learned.

Stakeholders are increasingly calling for transparency: clear timelines, published guidelines, consistent communication, and open engagement with all parties, including dissenting voices. Without these steps, patience within the boxing family may continue to wear thin.

Whether this past year will be judged as a necessary period of learning or a missed opportunity now depends on what comes next. For Ugandan boxing, the demand is simple but urgent: clarity, accountability, and action—before the sport pays an even heavier price.